This ethnographic case study documents students’ lived experience at a Canadian offshore school in Macau through students’ multimodal artifacts, interviews, and teacher-student interactions in English and Mandarin literacy classes. Undergirded by the theory of cosmopolitan literacies, this study revealed the opportunities at mcs for difference negotiation and fluid identity formation that were enabled by mcs‘s curricular emphasis on celebrating multiculturalism and multimodality. However, interview and observation data showed that literacy practices in the English literacy classes also centered around pen to paper meaning-making. This study identified human and non-human actors that enabled and constrained students’ literacy and identity options in the unique cross-border education context in Macau, such as mcs's multicultural reality, school's curricular emphasis on celebrating multiculturalism and multimodality, individual teachers’ preferences in literacy practices, and the expectations of the standardized Alberta test. The paper discusses the pedagogical potentials of cosmopolitan literacies to expand transnational education students’ literacy and identity options.
AokiT. (1993). Legitimating lived curriculum: Towards a curricular landscape of multiplicity. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(3), 255–268.
2.
BeanT.W., & Dunkerly-BeanJ. (2015). Expanding conceptions of adolescent literacy research and practice: Cosmopolitan theory in educational contexts. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 38(1), 46–54.
3.
BeckU. (2002). The cosmopolitan society and its enemies. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(1-2), 17–44.
ChapmanA., & PyvisD. (2006a). Quality, identity, and practice in off-shore university programmes: Issues in the internationalization of Australian higher education. Teaching in higher education, 11(2), 233–245.
6.
ChapmanA., & PyvisD. (2006b). Dilemmas in the formation of student identity in off-shore higher education: A case study in Hong Kong. Educational Review, 58(3), 291–246.
7.
CreswellJ.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
8.
CumminsJ. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd ed.). Ontario, CA: California Association of Bilingual Education.
9.
CumminsJ. (2009). Transformative Multiliteracies pedagogy: School-based strategies for closing the achievement gap. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(2), 38–56.
DebowskiS. (2005). Across the divide: Teaching a transnational mba in a second language. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(3), 265–280.
12.
DebowskiS. (2008). Risky business: Effective planning and management of transnational teaching. In DunnL. & WallaceM. (Eds.), Teaching in transnational education: Enhancing learning for offshore international students (pp. 204–215). New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
Dunkerly-BeanJ., BeanT., & AlnajjarK. (2014). Seeking asylum: Adolescents explore the crossroads of human rights education and cosmopolitan critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(3), 230–241.
14.
DysonA.H., & GenishiC. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
FenwickT., & EdwardsR. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. London, England: Routledge.
17.
FontanaA. (2003). Postmodern trends in interviewing. In J.F. Gubrium & HolsteinJ.A. (Eds.), Postmodern interviewing (pp. 51–65). London, UK: Sage Publications.
18.
GuttmanC. (2000, November). Offshore threats. The unesco Courier, 53(11), 35.
19.
HansenD.T. (2008). Curriculum and the idea of a cosmopolitan inheritance. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(3), 289–312.
20.
HarperH., BeanT.W., & DunkerlyJ. (2010). Cosmopolitanism, globalization and the field of adolescent literacy. Canadian and International Education, 39(3), 1–13.
21.
HawkinsM.R. (2014). Ontologies of place, creative meaning making and critical cosmopolitan education. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(1), 90–112. doi:10.1111/curi.12036.
22.
HuangF. (2008). Regulation and practice of transnational higher education in China. In DunnL. & WallaceM. (Eds.), Teaching in transnational higher education: Enhancing learning for offshore international students (pp. 23–33). New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
HullG.A., & StornaiuoloA. (2010). Literate arts in a global world: Reframing social networking as cosmopolitan practice. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(2), 85–97.
24.
HullG.A., & StornaiuoloA. (2014). Cosmopolitan literacies, social networks, and “proper distance”: Striving to understand in a global world. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(1), 15–44.
25.
JenkinsH. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st Century. Mit Press.
26.
JuppC.J. (2013). Toward cosmopolitan sensibilities in US curriculum studies: A synoptic rendering of the Franciscan tradition in Mexico. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(1), 48–71.
27.
KnightJ. (2002). Trade in higher education services: The implications of gats. London, UK: Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
28.
KressG. (2009). What is mode? In JewittC. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Multi-modal Analysis (pp. 54–67). Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.
LimM., & MoufahimM. (2008). Transnational education marketing (tne) between the U.K. and China: A critical discourse analysis of institutional marketing communications. Retrieved from https://lra.le.ac.uk/handle/2381/4105.
32.
LukeA. (2003). Literacy education for a new ethics of global community. Language Arts, 81(1), 20–22.
33.
McBurnieG., & ZigurasC. (2007). Transnational education: Issues and trends in off-shore higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
MillerA. (1998). Death of salesman. New York, NY: Penguin.
35.
NortonB. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In BreenM. (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (159-171). London, England: Pearson Education.
36.
PikeK.L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of structure of human behavior (2nd ed.). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
37.
PinarW.F., ReynoldsW.M., SlatteryP., & TaubmanP.M. (2008). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
38.
PyvisD. (2008). Transnational education in Mauritius: Quality assurance for program exporters. In DunnL. & WallaceM. (Eds.), Teaching in transnational education: Enhancing learning for offshore international students (pp. 227–237). New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
PyvisD., & ChapmanA. (2005). Cultural shock and the international student “off-shore”. Journal of Research in International Education, 4(1), 23–42.
40.
PyvisD., & ChapmanA. (2007). Why university students choose an international education: A case sty in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 235–246.
41.
RizviF. (2014). Encountering education in the global: The selected works of Fazal Rizvi. New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
SaitoH. (2010). Actor-network theory of cosmopolitan education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(3), 333–351.
43.
SmithD.G. (2006). Trying to teach in a season of great untruth: Globalization, empire and the rises of pedagogy. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
44.
SteinP. (2008). Multimodal pedagogies in diverse classrooms: Representation, rights and resources. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Inc.
45.
VasudevanL.M. (2014). Multimodal cosmopolitanism: Cultivating belonging in everyday moments with youth. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(1), 45–67.
46.
WahlströmN. (2014). Toward a conceptual framework for understanding cosmopolitanism on the ground. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(1), 113–132.
47.
WallaceM., & DunnL. (2008). Experiences of transnational learning: Perspectives from some undergraduates in the People's Republic of China and Singapore. In DunnL. & WallaceM. (Eds.), Teaching in transnational education: Enhancing learning for offshore international students (pp. 180–190). New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
YangJ.F., & HsiaoC. (2006). Educational marketing of transnational education in Asia. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 9(2), 72–77.
49.
YasukawaK. (2003). Towards a social studies of mathematics: Numeracy and actor-network theory. In KellyS., JohnstonB., & K. Yasukawa (Eds.), The adult numeracy handbook: Reframing adult numeracy in Australia (pp. 26–34). Retrieved from https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/12454/1/2003001941.pdf.
50.
ZhangZ. (2015). Chinese and Canadian teachers implement a hybrid Sino-Canadian curriculum: A multiliteracies perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48 (2015), 106–116. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.006.
51.
ZhangZ. (2019). Tracing cosmopolitan literacies: A case study of transnational literacy curricula. Journal of Curriculum Studies. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1580316.
52.
ZhangZ., & HeydonR. (2014). Lived literacy curriculum in a globalized schooling context: A case study of a Sino-Canadian transnational programme. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(3), 389–418.
53.
ZhangZ., & HeydonR. (2015). The changing landscape of literacy curriculum in a Sino-Canada transnational education programme: An actor-network theory informed case study. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 48(4), 547–564.
54.
ZhangZ., HeydonR., LiW., & MalinsP.(submitted). Literacies and identities in transnational education: A case study of literacy curricula in a Canadian transnational education program in China. The Curriculum Journal.
55.
ZigurasC. (2008). The cultural politics of transnational education: Ideological and pedagogical issues for teaching staff. In DunnL. & WallaceM. (Eds.), Teaching in transnational education: Enhancing learning for offshore international students (pp. 44–54). New York, NY: Routledge.
